4.6 Article

IDH1 R132C mutation is detected in clear cell hepatocellular carcinoma by pyrosequencing

Journal

WORLD JOURNAL OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY
Volume 15, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

BIOMED CENTRAL LTD
DOI: 10.1186/s12957-017-1144-1

Keywords

IDH; Hepatocellular carcinoma; Clear cell carcinoma; Pyrosequencing

Funding

  1. Research Institute for Convergence of Biomedical Science and Technology Grant, Pusan National University Yangsan Hospital [30-2015-029]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 (IDH1) mutation is common in low-grade glioma (approximately 80%) and acute myeloid leukemia (approximately 10%). Other than brain tumor or hematologic malignancies, intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCC) is a well-known solid tumor with IDH1 mutation (6.8-20%). Histologically, poor differentiation and clear cell change are associated with IDH1 mutation in iCC. Since hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) shares histologic features with iCC, some specific subtypes of HCC might show a higher IDH1 mutation rate than reported before (0.5-1.5%). Methods: Forty-six cases of iCC and 48 cases of HCC (including 20 cases of clear cell type and 13 cases of pseudoglandular pattern) were tested for IDH1 mutation by pyrosequencing. Results: Three cases in iCC (6.5%) and five cases in HCC (10.4%) had IDH1 mutation, all of which were Arg132Cys. IDH1 mutant HCCs were all clear cell type. Although the IDH1 mutation rate between iCC and HCC demonstrated no significant difference, clear cell HCC revealed statistically increased mutation rate compared to that of HCC without clear cell change (P = 0.009). Presence of IDH1 mutation was related with poor survival in clear cell HCC patients (P = 0.004). Conclusions: Clear cell HCC showed higher frequency of IDH1 mutation rate than other variants of HCC. This result consolidates the assumption that morphological features of tumors reflect molecular alterations.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available